It
is much to be regretted that people cannot always form the most favourable opinions of those who consider themselves
entitled to the admiration of their fellow citizens, and it is, perhaps,
quite as great a pity that all men will not act up to the dignify of their
station and the purity of their professions.

It
is exceedingly unpleasant to be compelled to censure where we ought to have
reason to commend, but when we see individuals pretending to all the sanctity
of righteousness, bending the idolatrous knee to that self interest which
they profess to have renounced, it almost affords a distressing pleasure to
tear the mask of dissimulation from their hearts, to hold them up to public
condemnation.

We
have been led to these remarks, by the perusal of some apparently candid
observations on convict discipline published in a late number of the Monitor.

The
theme is a fruitful one- it has employed the tongues and the pens of many
during the last twelve months and we are free to confess, that with much that
has been stated by our contemporary we perfectly agree.

We
are grossly abused when ours is designated "the prisoners' journal", that is, we mean, in the sense
which such a designation is meant to convey.

We
are not the prisoners' journalists - but we are and ever will be, to the
utmost of the limited powers with which Providence has endowed us, the
advocates of the helpless and oppressed, whether free or bond, or in whatever
situation of life they may happen to be.

We
look at the act, not at the individual upon whom or by whom it is inflicted.
Under such feelings it was that we perused the strictures in the Monitor, and
which were re-published in a subsequent number of that journal, they being
considered, as the editor stated, of much importance, not only in the colony,
but also in London.

Upon
the general principle of convict discipline, we think, there can be but one
opinion.

Every
restraint, consistent with the principles of justice and humanity, and
keeping in view the object of all human punishment, reformation by example -
ought to be imposed upon individuals who are undergoing the penalty of the
law.

The
interests of society the interests of the unhappy persons themselves, require
the exercise of that strict discipline which we recommend: but what is to be
its extent? That, we believe, is the sole question at issue.

For
many years prior to the establishment of New South Wales as a penal colony,
offenders against the laws were transported to the American plantations.

They
were then made the absolute property of the settlers- as absolute as the
cattle on their farms- they were, in fact, constituted white slaves, during
the full period of their banishment.

The
system of transportation now in force relieves the British nation from the
imputation of legally sanctioning slavery to its utmost extent.

The
crown is now the assignee of the British convict, possessing and exercising
the power of temporarily divesting itself of its rights, and vesting them in
the settlers residing in the penal colonies.

Once
in New South Wales, or Van Diemen's Land, the convict enjoys a qualified
freedom - he is placed, as it were, in a state of probation, preparatory to
his full restoration to society the law which has doomed him to exile
protects his person even in that state - he is not a slave, but an
apprentice. This is our view of the principle and object of the
transportation laws.

But
although the general system emanates from the British legislature, the minor
details must, of necesaily, be confided to the
discretion of the local government; and it is upon one of those points that
we are at issue with two of our contemporaries.

Of
the Sydney Herald it is not our intention to speak- its motives, its designs,
and the parties by whom it is influenced are so well known, that the
sentiments promulgated in that journal can have little weight.

Not
so with the Monitor - the editor of that paper has hitherto been looked upon
as the advocate and assenter of liberal principles - he had established for
himself a fame on that account which we, among the number of his former
admirers, had hoped would never have been diminished he has now "turned his back upon himself," he
best knows why. In this editor's writings, there has, of late, been a strange
inconsistency.

The
leniency of the present Governor, in reference to the question of convict
discipline, has long been a subject of weekly animadversion with him and his
"fellow soldier in the Gallia wars,"
our near neighbour.

The
"Summary Punishment Act"
has been repeatedly denounced by him, as a measure cilculated
to entail the most ruinous consequences to the settlers.

The
prison population was asserted to be in a state little short of insurrection,
owing to the mistaken lenity of the Executive authorities - complaints
multiplied upon complaints, of what is termed insubordination, of the
turbulent demeanor of the convicts, were spread far and wide - all emanating
from three or four individuals, but, notwithstanding, impudently put forth as
the sentiments of the settlers generally.

The
Governor instituted an enquiry, the result of which was such as fully
justified His Excellency in disregarding the clamour.

What
has been the result?

After
months of incessant declamation, we at length have it on record,
that all that has been alleged to have occurred as a consequence of
the "Summary Punishment Act,"
is not owing to the law, but to the magistrates not putting it in force!!!

Surely
three long tails are not too many for that.

To
be sure there is a reason assigned- or, rather, what is asserted as a reason,
namely, the influence on the minds of the magistrates, occasioned by the
Governor's known humane disposition: but we make our opponents a present of
that.

We
have upon record, the fact that the magistrates do not put the law in force,
and that to their remissness is to be attributed the existence (if it does
exist any where) of "insubordination." "Oh!
that mine enemy would write a book," says
Pope somewhere. - "Oh! that the Monitor would attack me," well may
exclaim the Governor.

The
Monitor has defended His Excellency, and we thank him for it.

But
the Monitor commends, and by implication, recommends, the Douglas panacea:
we'll give our readers a specimen of it, and then conclude for the present.

"Upwards of two years-ago, I was passing
along the public street opposite the gaol, when
Walton, the flogger, accosted me in the following manner:-

That he had been compelled to flog a
man, named Henry Bayne, in a most cruel manner, on suspicion of a robbery;

that he had been ordered to punish him
with 25 lashes every morning, until he would tell where the property he was
charged with stealing was concealed;

that no surgeon attended, and the man's
back was so lacerated, that he was afraid he would die under the punshment, if continued;

that he inflicted upon Bayne 25 lashes,
for five mornings successively, beginning on Monday;

that, on the sixth morning, being Saturday, he was ordered to flog him again,
when he kept out of the way all day.

On Monday he was ordered, by Doctor
Douglass, to punish him again, which he did, the man still persisting in his
innocence, and that he knew nothing of the property.”

"I satisfied myself with respect to the
correctness of Walton's statement, that he punished Henry Bayne six times in
eight days!!! - Vide Mr. Marsden's letter to the Court of Enquiry, dated
Parramatta, 28th July, 1825."

Such
were the doings in the days of Major Goulburn and Dr. Douglas! Would the
Monitor revive those times?

We
honestly believe he would not if he could.

Then
why write as he does?

Why
induce people to believe and assert, that he has no
fixed principle in politics - that he is the mere weather-cock of the day?